Saturday, May 24, 2014

Monday, May 19, 2014

Sallis on New Yockey Biography Project

New Bolton book planned.

Read here.

The Truth About Dugin

Insightful essay.

Let's not forget that Duginism is the ideological underpinning of Putinism.  At this point, I view anyone who still supports Dugin and Putin, both of whom are enemies of the White race and of the West, as enemies of the White race and the West themselves.

Monday, May 5, 2014

Franklin and Hemphill

No excuse for plagiarism.

A certain plagiarist discussed at this blog recommends the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.  No doubt one reason is Franklin's defense of the plagiarism of the preacher Hemphill, discussed here.

The question is whether it is better to have an excellent plagiarized speech or essay, or mediocre originality.  Franklin (and, presumably, Hamilton) sides with the former view.  But this is a false choice.  If a person, like Hemphill or Hamilton, recognizes their lack of originality, and wants to use the work of others, fine, but why can't they cite these others? The issue is not with a lack of originality - not everyone can be original.  The issue is a lack of character.  Yes, if you must, use others' work, but have the decency and integrity to cite that fact. Thus, for example, I've based much of my own ideas on the work of Salter and Yockey, but I've always cited them and given credit where credit is due.  I've been one of the leading defenders and extenders of Salter's work, but have always made clear that EGI is Salter's idea, not mine. Further, even when I've added original permutations to the EGI concept, such as the importance of genetic structure, I've also frequently mentioned that others - such as James Bowery and Ben Tillman - also independently came up with similar ideas at around the same time.

That's why Franklin was wrong.  Hemphill could have used the sermons of others to his heart's content, but he could have avoided the completely justified criticism of his character by admitting that the work was from those others.  

The "movement" has a character problem.  This issue is one manifestation of that problem. Defective characters should be eschewed from the "movement."  Of course, I realize that would result in the loss of, say, 99% of "movement activists," but quality is more important that quantity, no?

One more thing.  The plagiarist makes a point of addressing his reading suggestion to "people who comment anonymously on the Internet"  - note that the inclusion of "anonymously" seems to imply something negative in contrast to those who, like, say, Taylor or Duke or MacDonald, etc., comment openly.  The comment indirectly and slyly leaves the impression to the reader that the author of that comment is himself not an anonymous or pseudononymous commentator. Of course, he can't directly come out and say that, since it's not true, as we can see from the TOQ website (emphasis added):

Andrew Hamilton is the pen name of a widely-published author on the science and politics of race.

Yet another anonymous/pseudononymous Internet commentator.  Here is some more recommended reading for Internet commentators.

Those who have heretofore hosted the writing of this plagiarist need to carefully consider whether they want to be associated with these ethical lapses and this obvious lack of integrity.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Thank You, Robert Griffin

Truer words were never written.

Excerpts, emphasis added:

What especially intrigues me is why this disparagement and torment of white racial advocates and activists is so strong and heated among their fellow white people.  I don’t see other groups vociferously coming down on one of their own who stands up for their kind.  I don’t see blacks, for instance, going after a fellow black who says, “I think we ought to look at how our race is doing and work together to determine our own destiny,” demonizing and trying to marginalize and silence him, get him fired from his job, and so on.  In a number of places, I’ve attempted to explain this phenomenon among whites (“Are Whites Pathological: Yes and No, The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer 2013)... 
...If white people want to be the only race without anyone speaking up for them, and with no organizations, and no leadership, and no racial solidarity and collective action, and no positive racial consciousness and commitment, if that’s what they really want, they are doing a very effective job of bringing it about.
Quite right.  From a purely objective standpoint, a fitness standpoint, the White race is absolutely worthless. It's not that most Whites are merely indifferent to issues of race and racial survival, they are openly and actively hostile to their own survival, openly hostile to any expression of their own racial interests, openly hostile to anyone who promotes those interests. A race dedicated to its own destruction is inherently worthless from an objective fitness standpoint, particularly since other races show no interest in White preservation, even for the self-interested reason of benefiting from White contributions to human progress.

However, from the standpoint of a (rare) White person interested in racial survival and in pursuing their own ultimate (EGI) and proximate racial interests, then the White race is subjectively absolutely worthy and priceless.  But for now, only subjectively. If at some point in the future, Whites behave rationally then they may become objectively valuable from a fitness standpoint.  But not now.  

Not now at all.